9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1087 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - large-scale malpractice and corruption in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy - multiple activities related to or connected with proceeds of crime of scheduled offences in regard to which the ED registered the case in terms of Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT - It is admitted by the parties that the CBI case was registered on 17.08.2022 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 7/7A/8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station CBI, ACB, New Delhi against Manish Sisodia and others 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Applicant was named as an accused, but the Chargesheet in the CBI case (predicate offence) was filed without the arrest of the Applicant and he has been admitted to bail in the CBI case vide Order dated 28.02.2023. Moreover, the Applicant is an experienced professional with various educational qualifications and had volunteered to work with Organisations such as UNICEF Canada to educate children about UNICEF s work for children across the world, as well as with Afghans4tomorrow to help improve the business skills of students at the Kabul Education University. The Applicant despite being lodged in Tihar Jail No.4 as an under-trial prisoner, has volunteered as Horticulture Sahayak. The Applicant has deep roots in the society and is not a flight risk and has business and professions which are based in India and he is not likely to abscond from the country. In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT , there is no possibility of tampering of evidence by the Applicant if the Applicant is granted bail as the case is primarily dependent on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. Similarly, the apprehension regarding influencing witnesses and that of being a flight risk can be diffused by imposing stringent conditions while granting bail. Therefore, the conditions of triple test are duly satisfied by the Applicant. It is admitted that the Applicant has been behind bars since 06.03.2023, there are around 69,000 pages of documents involved in both CBI and ED matters. Moreover, there are 493 witnesses, who have to be examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the same case, the other accused persons, namely, Manish Sisodia, K. Kavitha, and Vijay Nair have already been admitted to bail in similar circumstances. The Applicant is directed to be released forthwith on bail in connection with the ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount; to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge/Trial Court - the Applicant is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. and Section 45 of PMLA, 2002. 2. Allegations of involvement in Delhi Excise Policy Scam. 3. Compliance with Section 19 of PMLA, 2002. 4. Prima facie case and evidence against the Applicant. 5. Satisfaction of conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002. 6. Risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 7. Prolonged incarceration and right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. Conditions for granting bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of Cr. P.C. and Section 45 of PMLA, 2002: The Applicant sought regular bail in ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 registered under Sections 3/4 of PMLA, 2002. The Applicant argued that the investigations by the respondent were against the canons of law and involved coercion to extract self-incriminating statements. 2. Allegations of involvement in Delhi Excise Policy Scam: The Applicant was alleged to be a key member of a criminal conspiracy involving the drafting and formulation of the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22, which resulted in a nexus that caused a loss of Rs. 2873 crores to the Exchequer. The Applicant was accused of participating in meetings and discussions to form a cartel and facilitate kickbacks. 3. Compliance with Section 19 of PMLA, 2002: The Applicant claimed that his arrest on 06.03.2023 was in flagrant violation of Section 19 of PMLA, 2002, as he was not provided with reasons for his arrest, and no Arrest Memo was prepared. The arrest was made mechanically without recording reasons in writing. 4. Prima facie case and evidence against the Applicant: The Applicant contended that no prima facie case was made out against him, as the entire case rested on statements extracted under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002, which lacked corroborative evidence. The respondent alleged that the Applicant was involved in multiple activities related to proceeds of crime and orchestrated a scheme to form a cartel controlling more than 30% of the liquor business in Delhi. 5. Satisfaction of conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002: The Applicant asserted that he fulfilled the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002, relying on decisions in Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India. The respondent argued that the Applicant failed to satisfy these conditions and was a highly influential individual with the potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. 6. Risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses: The respondent submitted that there was a reasonable apprehension of crucial evidence being destroyed if the Applicant was granted bail. The Applicant countered that the case was primarily dependent on documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution, and stringent conditions could mitigate the risk of tampering or influencing witnesses. 7. Prolonged incarceration and right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution: The Applicant had been in custody since 06.03.2023, with voluminous evidence and numerous witnesses to be examined. The court noted that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not become punishment without trial, emphasizing the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. 8. Conditions for granting bail: The court admitted the Applicant to bail, considering his deep roots in society, lack of flight risk, and the completion of investigations. The court imposed several conditions, including furnishing a personal bond, appearing before the court as required, surrendering his passport, reporting to the Investigating Officer, and not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses. Conclusion: The Applicant was granted bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, lack of flight risk, and completion of investigations, with stringent conditions to mitigate risks of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized the fundamental right to liberty and the principle that "bail is the rule and refusal is an exception."
|
